I think you should consider closing that thread because the guy defending the monk has not been addressing criticism posed to him but acts as he has never been refuted about anything, which has led to him losing credibility and the thread really looks like he is just attempting to post propaganda and is not at all interested in actually discussing anything.

I think the thread will consist of one party proselytizing or evangelizing what is perceived to be another spiritual path and others complaining about it.

The propaganda party is also making unsubstantiated claims akin to;

"i have addressed all criticism"
"i have not been refuted itt"

Thus this continuously breaks the ToS;

2e. Disruptive meta-discussion

and is continuously perceived as breaking;

3i. Proselytizing or evangelizing other spiritual paths

Because the person discussed is apparently considered to be a fake Arahant by many

I think you should consider closing that thread because the guy defending the monk has not been addressing criticism posed to him but acts as he has never been refuted about anything, which has led to him losing credibility and the thread really looks like he is just attempting to post propaganda and is not at all interested in actually discussing anything.

I think the thread will consist of one party proselytizing or evangelizing what is perceived to be another spiritual path and others complaining about it.

The propaganda party is also making unsubstantiated claims akin to;

"i have addressed all criticism"
"i have not been refuted itt"

Thus this continuously breaks the ToS;

2e. Disruptive meta-discussion

and is continuously perceived as breaking;

3i. Proselytizing or evangelizing other spiritual paths

Because the person discussed is apparently considered to be a fake Arahant by many

I can't see that closing the thread would do any good. Not addressing criticism, acting as if not having one's arguments refuted, and personally losing credibility are not grounds for closure. Meta-discussion about one's own comments is hardly disruptive if nobody has responded! It is a poor argumentative tactic, but nothing more serious.

Regarding the case that OP mentioned. Option "a" is OK for the sake of those who will be mislead, but it's endless. I prefer "b". Yes I'm happy to have the ability to let go even when people are disparaging the Dhamma.

“Bhikkhus, if anyone should speak against me (i.e. The Buddha), Dhamma, or Sangha, you should not either bear malice, suffer heartburning, or feel ill will. If you should be angry and hurt, that would only be a hindrance to you in your own self conquest. If, when anyone speaks against us, you feel angry and displeased at that, would you then be able to judge how far that speech of theirs is well said or ill? But when anyone speak against me, Dhamma, or Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as wrong, saying: 'For this or that reason this is not the fact, that is not so, such a thing is not found among us, is not in us.'

Also, if anyone should praise me, Dhamma, or Sangha, you should not, be filled with pleasure, gladness, or be lifted up in heart.Were you to be so, that also would only be a hindrance to you in your own self conquest. When anyone praises me, Dhamma, orSangha, you should acknowledge what is right to be the fact, saying: 'For this or that reason this is the fact that is so, such a thing is found among us, is in us.'”

> Brahmajāla Sutta

“Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one—himself.”

Regarding the case that OP mentioned. Option "a" is OK for the sake of those who will be mislead, but it's endless. I prefer "b". Yes I'm happy to have the ability to let go even when people are disparaging the Dhamma.

It is not that it triggers me, afterall i am not the one who risks falling into the trap of wrong views and faulty interpretations.
Ven. Dhammanando has spoken against those teachings and so has Ven. Pesala and i could not agree more in that it is a trap for the unwary.

Imho given that this board is a self-proclaimed Theravada forum and a "Dhamma Wheel", one might hope that people might care to actually uphold the Dhamma of the Theravada and not let people further muddy the waters.

"It's not the earth property that makes the true Dhamma disappear. It's not the water property... the fire property... the wind property that makes the true Dhamma disappear.[2] It's worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear. The true Dhamma doesn't disappear the way a boat sinks all at once.

"These five downward-leading qualities tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher. They live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five downward-leading qualities that tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

"But these five qualities tend to the stability, the non-confusion, the non-disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live with respect, with deference, for the Teacher. They live with respect, with deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five qualities that tend to the stability, the non-confusion, the non-disappearance of the true Dhamma."

Imho given that this board is a self-proclaimed Theravada forum and a "Dhamma Wheel", one might hope that people might care to actually uphold the Dhamma of the Theravada and not let people further muddy the waters.

I guess it depends on how one defines "Theravada" and "Dhamma". Ven. Waharaka and his supporters would presumably claim that they teach Dhamma, and are Theravadan. They seem to base their teachings on the same suttas as more widely-followed and respected traditions and teachers, and the points of contention are around the interpretations that they give to particular Pali terms and concepts. That being so, I don't know how one would effectively and fairly differentiate between such interpretations in a way that would support closure. I'm inclined to agree with Bhikkhu Pesala that it is largely "Baloney", and I'm happy to tolerate it on the grounds that some people seem to see benefit and interest in it. I know people who would claim that (say) Nanavira and Ajahn Chah are not Theravada and would close threads relating to them, too...

"Ananda, it's not proper for a disciple to follow after the Teacher to hear discourses, verses, or catechisms. Why is that? For a long time, Ananda, have you listened to the teachings, retained them, discussed them, accumulated them, examined them with your mind, and penetrated them well in terms of your views.

But as for talk that is scrupulous, conducive to release of awareness, and leads exclusively to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, & Unbinding — i.e., talk on modesty, contentment, seclusion, non-entanglement, arousing persistence, virtue, concentration, discernment, release, and the knowledge & vision of release: It's for the sake of hearing talk of this sort that it is proper for a disciple to follow after the Teacher as if yoked to him.

Follow teacher not for getting quotes but to listen conducive to release of awareness. I can watch movies, shows conducive to realease of awareness.
-
i think the translation of this quotes change the theme at second quote (it doesn't match the idea of the first quote). As the second quote translation talks about listening sermons what have certain qualities, but the first quote talks of the reasons of following after the teacher.
-
if movies what are conducive to unbidning are to be watched. Then the translation would be ok.

Last edited by auto on Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Imho given that this board is a self-proclaimed Theravada forum and a "Dhamma Wheel", one might hope that people might care to actually uphold the Dhamma of the Theravada and not let people further muddy the waters.

I guess it depends on how one defines "Theravada" and "Dhamma". [..] That being so, I don't know how one would effectively and fairly differentiate between such interpretations in a way that would support closure. [..] I know people who would claim that (say) Nanavira and Ajahn Chah are not Theravada and would close threads relating to them, too...

Anyway consider this my expression of dissent.

In the end it is up to admins to make the evaluation for where the draw the line for absurdity. I just thought that it is proper to express my opinion fwiw.

Imho given that this board is a self-proclaimed Theravada forum and a "Dhamma Wheel", one might hope that people might care to actually uphold the Dhamma of the Theravada and not let people further muddy the waters.

As I look at the Waharaka thread, I see numerous people challenging and refuting Waharaka's and Lal's views. And that is fine. Why censor their views? Allow it to stand in the marketplace of ideas and have it put for challenge, which is what happened.

If we start censoring what is true Dhamma and what is not, who decides? Obviously, there are some limits, to use an extreme example if there was someone who said that the Buddha prophesized the coming of Christ and is actually a Christian who advises us to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Now that would be going too far, but for just a different interpretation of the Suttas and a different account of anatta? Nah, that can withstand the marketplace of ideas and be put up for debate and challenge.

I know people who would claim that (say) Nanavira and Ajahn Chah are not Theravada and would close threads relating to them, too...

Yes, exactly and if we banned Ven. Waharaka's ideas, a Theravadin monk, do we also ban Ven. Thanissaro?

For those that want a more strict, hard-core Theravada only where dissenting opinions against anything in the Tipitaka, Commentaries and Abhidhamma are not allowed, there is the Classical Theravada sub-forum.

It's not that the rest of the forum is not Theravada too, but the other sub-forums simply allow more challenges, questions, and debates over certain passages, for example if they are early texts or later additions, true or not true.